More Articles

The Dispatch E-Edition

All current subscribers have full access to Digital D, which includes the E-Edition and
unlimited premium content on Dispatch.com, BuckeyeXtra.com, BlueJacketsXtra.com and
DispatchPolitics.com.
Subscribe
today!

A battle over Ohio’s “green” energy requirements is in many ways a sequel to one in 2008 over
another energy bill that critics say has caused more problems than it solved.

One of the harshest critics is someone who helped write the 2008 bill, Secretary of State Jon
Husted, a Republican who was then speaker of the House. He worked on Senate Bill 221 with the man
who signed it into law, then-Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat.

That 2008 law is much larger and more complex than the parts being debated today. It set new
rules for electricity-rate increases — provisions that contributed to a sharp rise in electricity
bills.

A typical American Electric Power household in central Ohio paid $115.69 for electricity last
month, up more than 40 percent from March 2009, according to the Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio’s monthly rate survey. The figures are for 750 kilowatts at the utility’s standard price.

Husted blames the PUCO for failing to properly implement the law. “The regulators have done
nothing but create higher prices,” he said.

Utilities will raise their rates “as much as the PUCO will let them get away with,” Husted said.
“The question is, should the PUCO have allowed them to do so.”

Strickland could not be reached for comment.

Former PUCO members say it is unfair to blame them for rising rates. “All things being equal,
prices would have gone up regardless of (Senate Bill) 221,” said Don Mason, a Zanesville Republican
who served on the panel from 1998 to 2008.

He cites several factors, such as the rising costs of fuel for power plants and the effects of a
previous policy that had held down rates.

Husted agrees with Ohio Senate Republicans who propose a rewrite of the green-energy rules.

Their plan says that utilities would no longer need to increase their investments in renewable
energy and energy efficiency each year, canceling an escalation of those initiatives that was to
continue until 2025.

Husted thinks the new plan is needed because the market has changed. In 2008, electricity demand
was rising, and utilities were projecting increases in sales that would easily offset the costs of
the green requirements.

But electricity demand has been close to flat since then, through the recession and slow
recovery. In this context, the energy-efficiency requirements — which say that utilities must help
customers reduce energy use — have stung the companies.

On the opposite side of the debate are consumer advocates. They agree with Husted that is was
unfortunate that Senate Bill 221 was followed by substantial rate increases. Unlike Husted, they
see the rate increases as the nearly inevitable result of flaws in the law.

Right after it was signed, the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel said the law “could allow
the PUCO to approve significant rate increases to residential consumers for many years.”

The current head of that office, Bruce Weston, has made note of the utility-friendly parts of
the law.

“It would be better for Ohioans if electric utilities were not allowed to, in effect, veto PUCO
decisions that set the standard-offer price that electric customers pay,” he said in October in
testimony before an Ohio Senate panel.

He was referring to part of the 2008 law that says utilities have the option to reapply for rate
increases if they are unsatisfied with a PUCO ruling.

His office has described the green-energy rules as “one of the jewels” in the 2008 law.

Husted is not part of the current debate, although he is following it. He has heard the
complaints about Senate Bill 221, and he agrees with many of them.